Worldnutdaily Columnist Calls for Theocracy

[n2doc]

Posted on: June 28, 2011 11:58 AM, by Ed Brayton

Ted Baehr, self-styled movie critic and Worldnutdaily columnist, declares bluntly that all governments -- and their subjects, of course -- should be subject to "divine law" and therefore that those legislators who voted for same-sex marriage in New York should now be prosecuted.

Either of these distortions of real truth is more of the same Marxist double speak. The New York state government has no authority to legalize homosexual marriage, whether the government was conscious of the Marxist thrust of its illegal actions or just being a useful idiot in the advance of Marx's goal to destroy the family.

Pages could be, have been and should be written about the progressive Marxist destruction of the American constitutional republic. And pages could be, have been and should be written about the destructive nature of the homosexualization of the culture. With regard to the illegal action of the New York state government, it is more important to understand clearly that the civil government has no authority in area of the free exercise of religion such as marriage. If it has no authority and tries to exercise power not vested to it, then the state is acting illegally.

What the fuck? The law has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. In fact, the law explicitly guarantees that no religious person has to participate in any way in a same-sex marriage if they don't want to. Baehr seems to think that because his religion has a view on marriage, that makes marriage a purely religious -- purely Christian -- institution and therefore not subject to secular law. That argument would need several promotions to get to be merely idiotic.

more

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/worldnutdaily_columnist_calls_1.php

[Newest Reality]

1. The trick is in the ruse

that "divine law" is anything more than a game of logical levels.

Rather than dealing with practical problems pragmatically, on the appropriate level on which they exist, this methodology presents a large abstraction into which they place all problems and conflate it with good, pragmatism, spirituality, etc.

Once this appeal to "divine law" is in accepted and in place, it clearly becomes subject to the presentation and interpretation of the "Scribes and Pharisees" that serve the agenda of the most powerful.

Notice how the theocratic evoke Marxism. While I think of democracy as an abstract itself, which we should really try someday, those who promote theocracy often abhor democracy itself. In my mind, it is important to frame theocracy as directly opposed to rule by the people. In fact, it is a throwback to, from the depth and scope of our modern understanding, to the most repressive, tyrannical and cruel systems that we have chosen to liberate ourselves from.

As many who are familiar with the theocratic sub-culture that works diligently both overtly, and more importantly covertly, to literally overthrow the ideals, (and many remain idealistic, to date) that most of us understand to be the context of what those important documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, stand for and convey, then those efforts move from a spiritual or religious realm to a political will towards nothing less than absolute power and domination of the people.

Note that some of the major promoters of Theocracy focus, for their "divine" legal system, on Mosaic Law from the Old Testament with little if any emphasis on the New Testament, except where it is congruent with their agenda. In other words, like any tyrannical political philosophy, or one that dis-empowers the people for the sake of the few, the Elite, may simply represent the use of the idea of the "divine" as a tool to beguile and overthrow the freedom of the many. It is up to us to contemplate that dilemma and consider our response to the assumption that someone, anyone, has a divine right to control and dominate our lives because of their interpretation of ancient texts that are already subject to much philosophical and scholarly debate as to accuracy of the translations and the context of the idioms involved.

In essence, theocratic movements are utilizing the rights that we, collectively afford to them in order to end ours. This leads us to question how tolerant we must be about such a movement when we find ourselves in a predicament where our ideals will be bent into dogmatic bars which intend to enslave us to someone's notions of divine will when they could easily be a nightmare hiding behind a pretentious facade, foisted upon us not by spiritually-inclined followers of a religion, but by nefarious, insecure power-mongers dressed in shabby, sheep's clothing.

When does religion become nothing more than a political, or sub-rosa corporatist tool, moving from a fairly benign matter of personal faith and belief to be exercised as a protected right to a propagandacist's tool of choice in a war to manufacture consent and justify the subjugation of millions, (along with brutal, barbaric proscriptions for punishment) with a premise that cannot reasonably and logically be argued against. After all it is God's Will and you are not God, and WE speak for him, being chosen.

Yeah, right.